Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 345 posts

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#221

Post by dopamean »

jdavis703 wrote: post #218
azag0 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.

This is the equivalent of reading a magazine in the bookstore and not buying it. It would be different if you walked out the store without paying.

I don't they're the same at all. In your example if you walk out of the store with the magazine the store has to cover the cost of the magazine. If you stay in the store and read it then the content provider didn't get paid for someone consuming their content however the magazine is still there. The store could still sell it.

The l.php script basically allows someone to read the magazine without paying for it. The only entity that loses something in that situation is the content provider.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#222

Post by jasonthevillain »

aianus wrote: post #40
harryjo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a full feed of quality news worth less to you than Netflix?

Netflix provides many times more hours of entertainment than the WSJ could ever hope to.

If you consider news only an entertainment product, that's a fair comparison. If you want to know what's going on in the world, it's not.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#223

Post by glenneroo »

raldi wrote: post #56

Has any publisher tried out a paywall along the lines of the following? "Hey, you've spent 29 hours so far this year reading 119 articles. Suggested donation: $62"

I often open 10-30 tabs with stories I want to read later.. and I leave those tabs sometimes open for a few hours or up to a few days until I have time/interest to read them. How would a paywall deal with that? Or perhaps I am the exception with this type of reading.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#224

Post by CSMastermind »

tptacek wrote: post #201

Tangent: I'm not sure I can think of recent money I've spent better than a year-long Washington Post subscription. Not because I want to support journalism (though I do), but because having a whole newspaper to flip through every day is so much more productive and efficient than getting dribs and drabs through Twitter and free news sites --- many of which are ultimately sourcing through the journalism that organizati…

The Wall St. Journal is the single highest quality news source I'm aware of.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#225

Post by detaro »

glenneroo wrote: post #223
raldi wrote: post #56

Has any publisher tried out a paywall along the lines of the following? "Hey, you've spent 29 hours so far this year reading 119 articles. Suggested donation: $62"

I often open 10-30 tabs with stories I want to read later.. and I leave those tabs sometimes open for a few hours or up to a few days until I have time/interest to read them. How would a paywall deal with that? Or perhaps I am the exception with this type of reading.

Only count times where your tab is visible, and/or the user occasionally scrolls? I'd expect that's a fairly standard feature in tracking JS.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#226

Post by zeamaize »

azag0 wrote: post #103
ctrl_freak wrote: post #28

If anyone's looking for another workaround, the article actually hints at the solution: Facebook's l.php redirect that it uses when you click on a link shared through the platform. It functions similarly to the Google redirect, and you don't even need a Facebook account for it to work. E.g. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...

How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.

Why the hell should I pay for poor journalism that is riddled with ads?

There is a reason I subscribe to Netflix but not Hulu.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#227

Post by stablemap »

carbocation wrote: post #212
tptacek wrote: post #201

Tangent: I'm not sure I can think of recent money I've spent better than a year-long Washington Post subscription. Not because I want to support journalism (though I do), but because having a whole newspaper to flip through every day is so much more productive and efficient than getting dribs and drabs through Twitter and free news sites --- many of which are ultimately sourcing through the journalism that organizati…

To lower the barrier even further, if you're an Amazon Prime subscriber and subscribe via Amazon, the first 6 months are free and then the cost is $4/month thereafter.

Maybe this doesn't count as supporting, but: you also get free access with a .edu, .gov, or .mil email address.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#228

Post by todd3834 »

zeamaize wrote: post #226
azag0 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.

Why the hell should I pay for poor journalism that is riddled with ads? There is a reason I subscribe to Netflix but not Hulu.

Hulu has an ad free plan

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#229

Post by hendersoon »

cobookman wrote: post #217
hendersoon wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. The real problem is pricing. The difference between absolutely free like most content on the internet and the WSJ standard monthly rate of $33/month is truly enormous. The NYT, which I also feel is priced too high, is $15/month. Remember Netflix costs $10/month-- that's the value proposition they need to compete against. These content producers should charge $5/month, with no scummy "special intro…

If they lower the price they might not get more subscribers. So they are pricing it to maximize revenue.

I can't speak to that-- all I can say with certainty is I personally would subscribe at $5/month.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#230

Post by tedmiston »

azag0 wrote: post #103
ctrl_freak wrote: post #28

If anyone's looking for another workaround, the article actually hints at the solution: Facebook's l.php redirect that it uses when you click on a link shared through the platform. It functions similarly to the Google redirect, and you don't even need a Facebook account for it to work. E.g. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...

How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.

Because there is no Spotify or Netflix for written content.
Post reply on HN